From Israel To Italy

While travelling in the States this summer, a number of people have asked my opinion about the Pope’s re-assertion that the Church of Rome is the only true Church. What this means is that nobody can have salvation outside of the Roman Church and the papacy. This is ancient Rome rising again. Read my last post for insight into Rome’s claim on eternity and power.

This is nothing new. JP2 (previous pope) said the same thing about six years ago in one of his encyclicles. Dr. Al Mohler Jr. wrote a good article in response. I’ve quoted a portion of it here for you:

I appreciate the document’s clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this - the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children; it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.

The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church—and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word—the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.

I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement - it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right—not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

Source: Florida Baptist Witness: Publishing Good News since 1884

No Comments »

Last night, I was watching a local program from our provincial capital of Pordenone. The special was The Da Vinci Code & the Catholic Church. There were many interesting points that the monsignor attacked and defended. But here is something I noticed again and again: The monsignor representing the Roman Empire never quoted from the Scriptures during the hour I listened to the program.

Of particular interest was the subject of celibacy and priests being allowed to marry. The DVC obviously brings some negative publicity to this unscriptural practice. So, the monsignore was asked to defend Rome’s position on the subject. The host of the program started the question like this, “You are a great theologian, so let me ask you, there are Protestant pastors in our area who have their churches and are married and have families…” I laughed because there’s about 10-15 of us that would be classified as that. I made it on TV.

The monsignore started on the point that many “around” the empire were allowed to marry; just not the priests. Finally, he arrived at the priests. Here are the three points that he made for enforcing a man-made tradition that disobeys the law and order of God:

1. “Celibacy is not a divine pronouncement; it is an ecclesiological one.”

Ok, I’d like to ask, “To the Romanists — what’s the difference? You’ve set the empire up to be the voice and oracle of God — so why do you stress that there is a difference as if the priests have a choice to follow the Catholic pronouncement or the Divine pronouncement if there’s one handy?” Do the priests really have a choice to follow not follow Rome’s pronouncement on the basis that it’s not divine?

Also, are you unwittingly admitting that the ecclesiological pronouncement isn’t really in accord with the Scriptures?

And then, if it’s not in accord with the Scriptures — aren’t you really saying that Rome is above the authority of the Word of God? — eeeeeh, just wondering.

2. “A priest can’t be devoted to the flock if he has a wife.”

This is very common to hear among Italian priests. Let’s interpret this phrase: A wife & kids are a big distraction; a detriment to a minister and the calling. They are definitely not a help.

Obviously, I don’t expect him to understand this in any way, but a wife who is committed to the Bible and the Bride is a synergy and joy and not a detriment to the minister. AND, it’s Biblical — no, really, it is. 1 Timothy 3:2-5

How can a man (a priest in this case) be devoted to the Truth and the flock while at the same time denying God’s natural law & order? To love God is to love His ways.

They call themselves “priests”. Ok, even the Old Testament priests were encouraged by God to marry and to multiply. God saw this as honoring to Him. He originally designed it that way.

3. “A family is an expensive thing to have. It costs a lot to take care of children and a home.”

Spoken like a real Italian. A family is a bottom-line issue; not a creation mandate. In Italy, the people marry and have kids based more on their financial schedule and outlook than any moral or Scriptural guideline.

“We (the empire) own these guys. We don’t want that money going to some distracting, costly family. How would we get privately rich that way?”

I know the arguments of the monsignore are both outdated & debunked, but they keep on using them — because if one of these “dogmas” falls, the rest of the fortress falls too — and Rome would lose control.

Here, I’ll let the former pontiff speak for himself¹

He will support and encourage priests, who, called by God’s grace, have freely assumed the commitment of celibacy for the Kingdom of Heaven, and remind himself and them of the evangelical and spiritual grounds of this choice, so important for the service of the People of God. In the reality of the Church and the world today, the witness of chaste love is, on the one hand, a form of spiritual therapy for humanity and, on the other, a form of protest against the idolatry of instinct.

I don’t think my wife would appreciate our marriage being termed as idolatrous instinct. She’s not around to “fulfill the animal in me.” Marriage is a beautiful thing… forced celibacy is silly.

1. JP2 in a 2003 encyclical “Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores”, point 21 [back]

1 Comment »